Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomer
May I clarify — what is happening now is the case that is about to be heard has the goal of completely dismantling the protection that says insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
This is not about people wanting a free ride.
This is about people who want to be able to buy “a ticket to ride.” ‘Buy’ is the operative word.
We are a nation of amnesiacs. There was a time when people who were trying to buy insurance on the open market — before the pre-existing conditions protection — either could not find coverage — or if they did find it, but needed to use it, they faced loophole after loophole.
We are very close to going back to that but people are not paying attention. The case is circling to land.
There are a lot of hardworking people who stand to lose healthcare coverage — when all they want is to be able to buy decent, affordable health insurance.
At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel.
Cassandra Boomer
|
Years ago, when changing from one insurance company to another, an "existing condition" was covered by the first insurance company for some period of time. Thus, when my wife was pregnant and I changed jobs, the "old" company covered costs through delivery. After that she and the baby the "new" company. I'm in favor of THAT kind of a system.
On the other hand, if a person or family is or was unable to obtain sufficient medical insurance, I'd expect (and support) a basic and necessary level of coverage to be provided by society. That means government. Taxpayer funded. I would NOT expect such basic coverage to include elective surgery or care.
Lastly, if a person/family was able to purchase health care and CHOSE not to do so, why should a health plan, private or government, be FORCED to "insure" them? If it's just "the right thing to do," how about mandating automobile insurance after a crash, or fire insurance after a fire, to compensate for damage already done? What's the difference?